Yes, the Times doubtless targeted Apple because “it’s the big dog on the tech block,” as Dignan puts it. But so what? Does that make its human rights infractions any less horrifying? No one is suggesting that we stop with Apple, but it seems like a fine place to start.

3. Apple users care more.

Here, I will be shamelessly anecdotal. Based on personal observation—heavily informed by lines drawn when I consulted my Facebook network on the Apple vs. Windows purchase question—consumers of Apple products (who disproportionately hail from the creative economy) are more prone to outrage over human rights violations than are inveterate Windows users. Okay, I’ve said my piece. Let the flaming begin.

In this case, however, the Times made the right call. Bottom line: You don’t get to flagrantly trade off human lives against profit. That’s why the notorious Ford Pinto memo was so scandalous—and why it sparked popular outrage along with a (later-reduced) $125 million damage award. (As some readers will recall, the memo employed a cost-benefit analysis to predict that a given design change would save 180 lives but cost an extra $11 per car, with a total cost estimated at $137 million versus a $49.5 million price tag put on the anticipated deaths and injuries. Ford opted not to make the change.)

It’s true that, at the margins, choices do get tougher. Because, yes, life is risky and everything—even crossing the street—entails a certain risk. At the margins, we are forced to make tough decisions, to prioritize competing concerns. But that’s not the case with Apple. Right now, we are nowhere near those margins.

♦

To add your voice to the thousands demanding that Apple improve global working conditions, please join me in signing this petition.